If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If you look I haven't said teachers shouldn't motivate just that naturally they will but you cannot try and blame them if you are in fact too bone idle to deserve to well in school.
It helps them pass exams.
It helps prevent them thinking for themselves.
Someone I know practically did that one time...
I don't think it does - I always found it easier to be given the work then left to get on with it and would ask for help when I needed it. However, I'm sure that in some of my lessons, I'd be asked regularly if I needed any help. But I was never spoon-fed.
LOL. Everyone who goes to school is spoon fed.
Which was the original intent of state schools. They have got exceedingly good at it. How many things have I pointed out aren't facts that just can't be accepted as fictions because of a childhood of conditioning?
The exams themselves are a way of molding young minds with certain beliefs, making sure that only those that accept "the program" will get through. It's why the people at the top remain the same to a large degree, they are always replaced by people just like themselves.
How many times were you forced to accept the mantra "I know it's not quite right but you'll have to play along to get your exams" when asking about the relevance of learning matrices or whatever.
you dont learn matrices in 2ndry school
and theyre very boring and about as seprated from the world as quantum physics, however, they are extremely useful
being taught politics at a levels or psychology is a joke imo though, much like citizenship at secondry school which shouts out thought control to me
Was it primary then? Cos i did them at school I know that much mate.
Make your mind up.
Yes, because learning about different political systems and the inner workings of your own mind and asking questions about those subjects is bound to enslave you. :rolleyes:
I wasn't reffering to that anyway. I was refering to the fact that you are taught to kowtow in general, that having bits of paper makes you competent, that you should do as your told even when you know for a fact that it's stupid.
In short, you learn to be a happy little robot, or a sad little robot, or an angry little robot, but still a robot.
I expect a teacher to spend their working life trying to motivate every single student. This is what they are being paid for. This is part of their job. People will always try to shift blame for their own failures this is not unique to children whose teachers attempt to motivate them and fail. Whether they are successful or not part of a teachers job is to attempt to motivate all their students.
Well you said this: and this:
Which seems to suggest that if a student isn't responding well to motivation then the teacher should stop trying with them which I strongly dissagree with as each individual is likely to change a great deal during their school years, Especially in maturity, and the student that was lazy and disinclined to learn in the first 3 years may well turn around in the second 3.
I have never said that teachers should be blamed for students who genuinley have no interest in learning and in fact in my last two posts I have said this exact statement:
So why you've brought it up again as if it's something I'm defending I don't know?
I never said that ...
Which of course is wrong. Self motivated students shouldn't be neglected you're perfectly rigtht.
I'm curious though ... when you say 'it just doesn't happen. Its those pupils who cannot be arsed that get the teacher's attention,' is that coming just from your personal experience at school, or are you training to be a teacher, or have you perhaps investigated this sort of thing during courses at uni?
I'm not being sarcastic. Just interested to know because that was quite a sweeping statement and I was wondering where its come from. My secondary school was very into league tables and in achieving results ... when it became apparant that I wasn't one of the brighter students in my class I felt like I was pigeon holed as someone who was not going to achieve much, felt like there was little point in me trying and slacked off .... i suppose i would have been considered 'bone idle' by many of the posters here. I still got all A to Cs in my gcse's but wouldn't have been allowed to A levels in 6th form, it was GNVQ or nothing. I went to a different 6th form college, did A levels and got reasonably good grades and got to uni. Only because my 6th form teachers didn't have me down as 'a bit of a trouble maker' or whatever else and made an effort with me.
So my school seems to be the reverse of yours. Unless your knowledge is coming from more than just your own experience at school I would argue that perhaps its not as clear cut as you thought.
If you waste the opportunity of school then tough shit.
:banghead: Are you actually reading any of my replies?
I think perhaps the teachers shouldn't label people as much as they do, there's a lot of evidence against labelling and another thing to note about schools is that often, attainment tends to be class related. But then how are people going to help?
Perhaps there could be classroom assistants to help those with low attainment, but more casual assistance rather than a strict teacher... Perhaps for example, somebody younger. It's the attitudes of the young people that are what causes the problem... Maybe schools are too institutionalised too.
But yeah, some people seem to be beyond help in the case of laziness and getting negative attention off teachers works again, as enforcing label. But perhaps the sort of 'look at me, I'm cool' label... Kinda like the asbo. It's sad that people idolise football players or pop stars rather than intellectual people...
Not really - the people who do idolise intellectuals are usually tiresome and facetious arseholes who are most definitely not intellectual in any sense.
Truly intellectual people generally don't idolise other intellectuals.
Fame, money, drugs and women are far more attractive propositions - that doesn't mean people can't engage their brains in intellectual activity, though.
Out of interest what do you base either of these statements on?
Yes doesn't mean your saying anything that I agree with. Why should a teacher devote any more time to a pupil to motivate them than the rest of the class. Especially if it is purely because the pupil is bone idle rather than struggling because they haven't got the courage to stand up to a bit of peer pressure.
OK, one more time. So far in your last 4 posts (including the one above) you have made the same point:
Each time you have ignored the fact that I said:
and ...
I really don't know what I can do to make you read what I'm actually saying. You have reiterated the same point over and over ... you don't think that lazy kids should blame their teachers ... I fucking AGREE !!!!!!!!!!! If a child makes no effort they have no right to blame their teacher!
Are we clear on that?
But ... just because a student does not appear to be working does not mean the teacher can neglect them.
It doesn't mean they should spend more time on them! It doesn't mean the self motivated kids should suffer! Just that the teacher shouldn't give up on a student as a lost cause!
A teacher should be trying to motivate all their students equally.
Now if you disagree with that thats fine but please don't repeat that you think its unfair that lazy kids blame their teachers because I'm not arguing with you there. If you think that the teacher should spend less time with the children who show no inclination to learn and more on those who do ... ok ... but please explain to me why this should be.
But before you do ... please notice that I have (repeatedly) said I do not think that teachers should spend more time motivating students who refuse to try. Just that they should not spend less time on them either!
It is a fallacy to say the grammer schools are unfair to those who fail the 11+, if anything it helps them. Some children are born stupid, some clever, most mediocre, different schools don't hinder, they help. Less intelligent children can be taught slowly in comprehensives, whilst the brighter can be taught things faster in grammer schools.
Also this talk of elitism in grammer schools is ridiculous, if anything the opposite is true. Children go to grammer schools based solely on ability, not because they have rich parents that can send them to public schools. Grammer schools are diverse, with rich and poor side by side, they are anything but elitist.
Indeed same for me except I even spent a year at a comprehensive first (which was way way way too easy for me i might add) While I have to say there were obviously people in some of my grammar classes who had been trained up to pass the 11+ and nothing else because they really were well...thick.